NGOs in Conflict

INTERNATIONAL NGO field staff, especially relief workers, often experience hardships similar to those of local residents. Coping with the lack of electricity and water was common in Iraq. Dealing with the threat of insurgents' attacks was part of the daily reality of NGO representatives in Afghanistan. In both countries, NGO representatives in some areas had to exercise great caution to avoid being kidnapped or killed by insurgents. NGOs try to identify and ally themselves with groups seeking to resolve political differences, but this may offer little protection in conflicted regions where extremists may target all outsiders. Even in more stable environments typical of peacekeeping operations, NGOs can be snared in a host of political and practical difficulties by unwitting involvement in tribal rivalries, land disputes, or criminal activities. NGOs must carefully evaluate local conditions and local actors to avoid unintended consequences of their actions.

Operating in Conflict: Challenges to Independence and Impartiality

NGOs dedicated to humanitarian relief operations generally attempt to maintain a policy that is consistent with the NGO/IFRC Code of Conduct, which has three main guiding principles: the humanitarian imperative, indepen dence, and impartiality in situations of conflict. Their purpose is to relieve human suffering regardless of political, ethnic, religious, or other affiliation. NGOs that focus specifically on conflict resolution also value their neutrality; unless they are seen as impartial, they are unlikely to be able to promote dialogue and establish common ground between the antagonists (individuals and community groups, as well as governments and rebel forces) with whom they work. Most human rights organizations are also careful to limit their advocacy to the rights of individuals or groups, rather than take sides in the conflict.

Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have increased discussion within the NGO community on what constitutes "humanitarian space." This phrase has been used in the sense of an area protected by the imperatives of neutrality, impartiality, and independence-the cornerstones of NGO work in conflict areas. The term has also been applied in a more pragmatic manner to a permissive area that is not directly protected by military elements. Differences notwithstanding, the humanitarian community has largely accepted the fundamental necessity for humanitarian work to be done in areas not subject to questions of conflicting allegiances or political motivation. Humanitarian space is generally understood to include the following elements:

• Physical access to those with assistance and/or protection needs (geographical dimension)
• The necessary social, political, and military conditions for humanitarians to carry out their work, including security and immunity from attack (physical and institutional dimensions)
• Respect for humanitarian principles, including independence and the humanitarian character (non military and nonpolitical) of humanitarian work (temporal and categorical dimensions) (ECHO 2004)

In interstate or even intrastate conflicts that are fought between easily distinguishable forces on battlefields with relatively well-defined front lines, there is some clarity about what constitutes impartial behavior—for example, an NGO is more likely to be regarded as impartial if it delivers food and medical supplies to all sides in a conflict than if it focuses its efforts solely on innocent populations, such as small children. But in civil conflicts that target civilian populations—especially in cases where particular regions or peoples are denied food and other supplies—it is much harder for NGOs to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that the US military was both a combatant and a source of large amounts of humanitarian and development assistance raised new questions about the military’s relationship with NGOs. Many NGOs were quick to point out that the US military should not consider them as a “force multiplier” or assume their coperation under all circumstances. This stance resulted from the desire of these groups to preserve their independence and respect humanitarian principles.  These groups believed that the military should only engage in humanitarian and development in areas where other agencies could not operate or as a last resort in emergencies. Other NGOs were more tolerant of the military and willing to share space with its assistance programs.   

In insurgencies and civil wars, civilians are often in close proximity to the conflict. NGOs, therefore, are hard pressed to find ways to deliver assistance and maintain some semblance of humanitarian space. The pace of the fighting in Iraq outstripped the miltary's ability to respond to the needs of a population whose well-being was now in its hands. The dilemma for the NGOs was how to assist without being seen as a party to the occupation itself. This issue emerged even before the fighting in Iraq had started, as NGOs entered into extensive internal debates on their potential roles. They pressed the military to understand the importance of humanitarians being perceived by all parties as neutral.

Security is an enormous concern of international NGOs, especially those engaged in relief, refugee, and human rights work in conflict situations. The continuing increase in the number of NGO workers-and in particular, in total number of local workers, who are more likely than foreign workers to be caught in the conflict-has exacerbated the problems raised by inadequate security and a lack of basic security training. Sometimes, partnering with local groups can render an international NGO suspect because of the political affiliations or activities of the local staff.

Security concerns have prompted international NGOs to consider a variety of approaches to ensuring staff safety. InterAction, the U.S. NGO association, has developed a training module to promote security for staff operating in high-risk zones. The training emphasizes personal conflict-handling techniques rather than deterrence and physical protection. It recognizes that, because of their work, NGO staff members are vulnerable to assaults and other violence, and it aims to heighten their sensibility to potentially threatening situations and give them tools to defuse or avoid confrontations. Acceptance of this approach is the bases on which most NGOs manage staff safety and security. This involves building and carefully maintaining relationships, positive reputation, and consistent image with local actors. NGO attitudes are based on a combination of principles and pragmatic considerations necessary to ensure their survival in conflict areas.

NGOs are increasingly aware of their potential to be seen as a threat in traditional societies simply because they are associated with external influences coming from Western and secular societies and from globalization. The phrase "blurring of roles" has come to describe this situation. NGOs also find that they are seen as exercising political or social influence simply because they control resources that have an impact. In Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents  have attacked NGOs as part of their campaign to drive out all Western influence. They also want to prevent NGOs from assisting governments in fulfilling their promises of economic development and a better life.

Continue to NGO-Military Coordination